|
Mutitjulu ups the Aunty
Issue 113 - 07 Sep 2006
ISSUE 113, September 7, 2006: It's official. The fightback is on. The Mutitjulu community - battered from pillar to post by ABC's flagship current affairs program, Lateline - has begun to return fire. Earlier this week, the community filed a 55 page formal complaint to the ABC. The allegations charge Lateline with breaking half of the 12 Journalist's Code of Ethics. About double that number of the ABC's editorial policies have been breached, the complaint claims. The response marks an escalation in the war of words. Mutitjulu has already dragged the federal government into court over the appointment of an administrator to run the community. Lateline and the ABC don't look likely to escape any easier. CHRIS GRAHAM, BRIAN JOHNSTONE & AMY McQUIRE bring you the latest installment in the ongoing scandal that is the treatment of Mutitjulu.
The fightback begins... with a 55 page complaint to the ABC
The Central Australian town of Mutitjulu has officially begun its fightback against media reporting of its community after earlier this week filing a lengthy complaint with the Australian Broadcasting Commission over coverage by its flagship current affairs program, Lateline.
The complaint, including 16 attachments, runs to 55 pages and relies in part on coverage in other media, including the National Indigenous Times and The Sydney Morning Herald.
It is co-signed by Mutitjulu councillor Mario Giuseppe and Mutitjulu council official, Dorethea Randall on behalf of the community.
The complaint names a total of six journalists and producers from the ABC from Sydney, Alice Springs and Darwin.
It also names four separate programs - Lateline, ABC Radio programs AM and PM, and ABC TV program Media Watch and it calls on the ABC to investigate the failure to report stories by ABC Northern Territory, which comprises sites in Alice Springs and Darwin.
The complaint alleges Lateline breached six of the 12 principles of the Australian Journalist's Code of Ethics in its June 21 story, headlined 'Sexual slavery reported in Indigenous community' and in other stories aired after the program.
It also alleges Lateline breached multiple ABC editorial policies in its coverage and that other ABC programs failed to report stories which cast doubt on Lateline's claims.
The community of Mutitjulu also calls on the ABC to investigate allegations aired in The Sydney Morning Herald that two sources in the June 21 program requested Lateline not include comments by Gregory Andrews in the story.
Lateline has remained silent in the face of the allegation, as have the two sources.
Mr Andrews, a senior official in the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination, was falsely described by Lateline as a "former youth worker", and his face was filmed in shadow and his voice digitised to disguise his identity.
"[The alleged] breaches and procedural failures [by the ABC] are further compounded by reports in The Sydney Morning Herald that two of Lateline's sources, Dr Geoff Stewart and Jane Lloyd, both warned Lateline against using Mr Andrews as a source prior to the story being broadcast.
"We request that both these individuals be contacted by the ABC to confirm or deny this allegation.
"We also request that both Dr Stewart and Ms Lloyd be asked by the ABC whether or not they believe the June 21 story was a fair and accurate representation of the community of Mutitjulu because to date, Lateline has consistently pointed to both these sources in defence of its coverage."
The complaint also points to an interview in the last edition of NIT with Dr Richard Janus, a former locum at Mutitjulu.
"Dr Richard Janus, a source in a story authored by Suzanne Smith on June 22, 2006 claims his comments were also selectively reported by Lateline.
"It is inexcusable that Lateline, and in many cases other relevant ABC programs, have misreported and ignored these issues. It constitutes a complete disregard for the MEAA Code of Ethics and numerous ABC Editorial Policies. It also smacks of a cover-up on the part of Lateline, and some quarters of the ABC.
"With that in mind, we also ask you to investigate the coverage of the unreported stories listed above by ABC Northern Territory, and by the ABC Radio program PM. In addition to this, we seek an explanation from the ABC about why your program Media Watch has completely ignored this issue and why radio program AM initially reported the sensational (albeit false) aspects of the Lateline story, but has subsequently abandoned stories that rebut Lateline's claims.
9. Lateline presenter Tony Jones asserted on August 1, 2006 that Mr Andrews was not the main witness in its June 21 story, rather that Dr Geoff Stewart was. The headline of the June 21 story is, 'Sexual slavery reported in Indigenous community'. That claim was made by Mr Andrews, and Mr Andrews alone. Dr Stewart explicitly rejected claims that paedophile rings were operating in Aboriginal communities. If Dr Stewart was Lateline's "main witness", why did the headline on the story refute what he had stated? We believe the ABC and Lateline should respond to this question.
10. Also on August 1, 2006, Tony Jones asserts that Lateline never backed the claims of Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough that paedophile rings were operating throughout Aboriginal communities. On June 21, on the ABC PM program, Suzanne Smith in an interview with Mark Colvin states: "[Mal Brough] was attacked for [his claim about paedophile rings]. But what we have found corroborates what he said." What Lateline found in no way corroborates what Mal Brough said. And what Tony Jones claimed on August 1, 2006 in no way resembles what actually happened."
11. Lateline asserted that its critical witnesses had lived in Mutitjulu. Some of the witnesses portrayed in the Lateline story have not lived in Mutitjulu for many years but are depicted as people who are aware of the situation on the ground today, when clearly they are not. Dr Geoff Stewart is described by Lateline on August 1, 2006 as the main witness in the story. He has not lived in Mutitjulu since late 2002. Mantatjara Wilson is also described by Lateline as a primary witness. She has not lived in Mutitjulu for almost seven years. Gregory Andrews, who clearly was the main witness in the story, never lived in Mutitjulu at all, despite his public claims to the contrary, and neither did Jane Lloyd. This is in breach of principle 1 of the MEAA Code of Ethics. This is also in breach of ABC Editorial Policies 5.1.3 & 6.1.3.
12. The Lateline story claimed not only that leaders in the Mutitjulu community did nothing to stop the actions of an alleged paedophile, but it also asserted that Parks Australia, the man's employer, also took no action when it was notified of the man's alleged activities. This is false. When Parks Australia was notified of the man's activities, it reported the matter to police. In consultation with local community members, it also placed severe restrictions on the man's conditions of employment. This eventually forced the man to resign from his position and leave the community. Lateline appears to have never sought comment from Parks Australia prior to broadcasting the claims in its story. Had it sought and obtained comment from Parks Australia, then one of the central allegations of the story would have collapsed - ie. that the alleged paedophile was able to operate "unchecked by white and black authorities". This is in breach of principle 1 of the MEAA Code of Ethics. This is also in breach of ABC Editorial Policies 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.4.1, 5.4.2, 6.1.3 and 6.4.7.
13. If Lateline did seek comment from Parks Australia, then it does not declare this in its story. ABC Editorial Policy 6.4.7 is very clear on this principle - "When a prospective interviewee declines to be interviewed on a matter of public interest, where the audience might reasonable (sic) expect to hear counter arguments or allegations answered, the producer should be prepared to inform the audience that the person concerned 'was invited to appear on the program but declined'."
14. Lateline depicts one of its witnesses, Jane Lloyd, "trail[ing] the paedophile as he cruised the community in his car". This is quite clearly a re-enactment, but it is not labelled as such. This is in breach of principle 8 of the MEAA Code of Ethics. This is also in breach of ABC Editorial Policy 6.11.2, which clearly states "Where they are used, re-enactments must be clearly identified as such and presented in a way which does not mislead audiences". This deception also requires adjudication by the ABC as to whether or not it was appropriate set against the ABC's Editorial Principle 6.11.1, which states that "re-enactments should be used sparingly in News and Current Affairs television programs".
15. The un-attributed Lateline re-enactment seeks to portray Ms Lloyd as driving around Mutitjulu. As Lateline journalist Suzanne Smith has already acknowledged, Lateline did not have permission to enter the Uluru - Kata Tjuta National Park, nor did it have permission to visit Mutitjulu. So how then was this footage obtained? Did Lateline or its agents illegally enter Aboriginal land without a permit? If, however, it's the case that this footage does not depict the community of Mutitjulu and was actually filmed elsewhere, why was this fact not declared to viewers? Also, the footage clearly depicts a woman from the NPY Women's Council in the rear view mirror. Did Lateline coerce NPY into obtaining this footage? And if so, why was this not declared? These are serious matters of probity and we believe it is incumbent on the ABC to investigate and respond."
The complaint also accuses the ABC of compounding the alleged misreporting since the airing of the story, noting the ABC's "failure to report key facts that have emerged since [the Lateline] story".
"Stories and issues that Lateline has either ignored, misreported or refused to report subsequent to the airing of its story include:
• That Greg Andrews has been forced to apologise for misleading the federal Senate about his time in Mutitjulu;
• That leaked emails show Gregory Andrews was seeking the criminal records of a Mutitjulu official from a source in Central Australia, a clear breach of the federal Privacy Act and the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct. Not only has Lateline and the ABC in total failed to report this, but Lateline continues to defend Mr Andrews, promote him as a credible source who is seeking to protect human rights, and attack media and individuals who have questioned his conduct. It's one thing to back a source, it's another thing altogether to ignore mounting evidence that that source is a person of questionable character.
• That the scourge of petrol sniffing has been eliminated from the Mutitjulu community.
• That the Lateline story was relied upon by the federal government to place the community of Mutitjulu under administration. Lateline enthusiastically reported that its story led to the creation of a police taskforce, but it has failed to report the federal government's grossly inappropriate use of its flawed story to demand the appointment of an administrator in addition to the other stories ignored or misreported, as outlined in this complaint.
• That the head of a Northern Territory police taskforce set-up specifically to investigate the claims aired on Lateline, Superintendent Colleen Gwynne, told media on July 14, 2006 that after interviewing almost 300 people in Mutitjulu, police believed the Lateline claims were over-stated and that there was "no evidence whatsoever" to support claims petrol had been traded for sex with young children. Whether or not Lateline accepted the claims of Supt Gwynne, it was ethically obligated to at least report them. It did no such thing. Instead, in a story broadcast on July 21, 2006, authored by Sara Everingham, Lateline reported: "A Northern Territory police taskforce was sent into Mutitjulu last month to investigate after Lateline went to air, but has so far laid no charges". This is inexcusable.
• That there has been a lengthy debate about the manner in which Lateline has reported on Mutitjulu in the House of Representatives during which the Member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon heavily criticised Lateline for its conduct.
• That NT Senator Trish Crossin made statements in parliament which were also highly critical of Lateline. However, Lateline did not broadcast these statements, it merely made a passing reference to them in a lengthy and self-serving interview designed to strengthen Lateline's position.
• That Parks Australia, when notified of the alleged activities of the man Lateline asserts is a paedophile, placed severe restrictions on the man's work in consultation with the Mutitjulu community. Head of Parks Australia, Peter Cochrane issued a statement several days after the Lateline story refuting the claims made by Lateline. This statement has never been reported by Lateline. Had Lateline reported this, one of the central allegations in its story would have collapsed, so it chose not to report it. This is grossly dishonest on the part of Lateline.
• That Dr Geoff Stewart, a key witness in the Lateline story, provided Viagra to the alleged paedophile at the centre of Lateline's story on 21st June 2006. One of the central allegations in the Lateline story is that it was the leaders of the Mutitjulu community, and the man's relatives, who made it possible for this man to allegedly assault children with impunity. In fact, the only concrete evidence to emerge shows that in fact the man's alleged actions were made possible by community doctors in Mutitjulu who prescribed the elderly man Viagra. It beggars belief that Lateline has ignored this story, particularly given Tony Jones' description of Dr Stewart as Lateline's "main witness". It should be noted that in addition to Lateline ignoring the story, no other ABC news outlet has filed a single word on it either."
 
|
|